How clean is ‘clean energy’? Renewables cannot solve the global crisis
Saral Sarkar
15235

The author revealed some important downside factors that are often not addressed regarding renewable energy generation. He presented a conceptual solution that isn’t realistic and stems from a socialist perspective that assumes more equitable distribution of the remaining resources in the future. His survival perspective assumes that we have at least 100 years to implement his solution which he refers to as a long-term goal. He proposes bringing down the population to under 2 billion from the present 7.5 billion but provides no suggestions on how that should take place. He mentioned the next hominid species which indicates he understands a major collapse of the ecosystem is underway but the collapse will likely be so extreme that there won’t likely be any creature similar to us for ten’s-of-millions of years in the future.

He seems to have tried to address the I = PAT equation which translates to the following.

Human Impact on the environment equals the product of Population, Affluence, and Technology. This shows how the population, affluence and technology produce an impact.

Many, who take a socialist approach simply assume that more equitable sharing of the available resources will provide a sustainable future despite the existing population and high consumption rates. They assume that as affluence rises for the poor then populations will drop to sustainable values.

My view is that total collapse of industrial civilization will have happened by 2030 and only the simplest forms of life will be left soon after that.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.